The Chickenhawk Gambit
From a comment by Jon H. at Belgravia Dispatch:
Lance writes: “Supporting the war doesn’t mean you should have to fight.”
Absolutely.
However, one’s willingness to enlist marks the limit on just how important the war really is to you, doesn’t it?
Plenty of hawks support the war, just so long as someone else is fighting it.
This rhetorical device is known as the Chickenhawk gambit. It is axiomatic that your beliefs about the war are inauthentic unless you are enlisted in the military. Or opposed to the war. Or on the other side.
Similarly, you cannot be serious about education if you are not a teacher. If you’re not a policeman or a judge, you don’t really care about the criminal justice system. Don’t even talk about disaster response unless you are a first responder.
If the Chickenhawk gambit is correct, we should apply it ruthlessly. The logical conclusion is that only soldiers are entitled to an opinion on the war. I hear they’re damn proud of the work they’re doing, as they should be.
Posted on June 27th, 2005 by pwyll
Filed under: politics, war
Entries RSS